Contributors
813.229.4304
407.244.8235
813.229.4301
202.965.8181
813.229.4362
305.347.6823
305.347.6990
860.392.5038
305.539.7309
561.650.0354
561.822.2972
561.650.8014
305.539.7230
202.295.6525
212.380.9612
305.539.7330
860.392.5053
202.965.8129
202.965.8126
202.965.8107

October 2012


October 30, 2012 1:43 PM | Posted by Roberts, Joshua | Permalink

On September 5th we blogged about the fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear Standard Fire Insurance Company’s plea to remove a class action lawsuit that was filed against it, to federal court.  This case is of great importance to all future class action defendants as the Supreme Court will decide whether a named plaintiff can defeat a defendant’s right of removal (to federal court) under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) by filing a class action complaint with a stipulation that limits damages for putative class members to less than $5 million.  Five million dollars is the magic number because that is the threshold amount for federal jurisdiction. If the Court allows such a stipulation, class action plaintiffs everywhere could use such stipulations to prevent defendants from removing cases from plaintiff-friendly state courts.

On October 22, 2012 Standard Fire filed its merits brief. See The Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Knowles, 2012 WL 5246242 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief). Find out what was argued in the brief after the jump.

read more
October 16, 2012 5:27 PM | Posted by Morande, Dean | Permalink
What happens if a district court provides five alternative bases to deny class certification, and the appellant fails to refute one of those bases in its initial brief to the Eleventh Circuit? read more
October 16, 2012 5:25 PM | Posted by Morande, Dean | Permalink
In Ault v. Walt Disney World Co., 692 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2012), a class settlement was reached in a suit alleging that Disney’s policy banning the use of two-wheeled vehicles violated Title III. The settlement involved Disney’s agreement to implement a four-wheeled stand-up mobility vehicle. Objectors to the settlement asserted that the settlement should have been rejected, both because the class representatives lacked typicality and because the class settlement was not fair. Both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit disagreed. read more
October 10, 2012 5:14 PM | Posted by D. Matt Allen | Permalink
Oxford University Press has released two new books on class actions that the practitioner may find helpful. read more